git_clean

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns 'DESTRUCTIVE: requires confirmed=True to delete', explains that dry_run previews without deleting, and clarifies scope ('Does NOT touch tracked files, ignored files, or stashes'). It also mentions return values. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, safe usage, destructive warning, scope limitations, best-for, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and flows logically.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without an output schema, the description states the return format ('list of removed or would-be-removed files, or 'No untracked files to clean.'') and covers safety, scope, and workflow. For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, this is fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the confirmed/dry_run relationship but does not add substantial new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Delete untracked files, or preview them first with dry_run.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating 'Does NOT touch tracked files, ignored files, or stashes — untracked files only' and referencing git_status for viewing untracked files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for: removing build artifacts and other untracked clutter') and an alternative ('use git_status to see untracked files before deciding what to clean'). It also instructs to preview first with dry_run, outlining a safe workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.